SPEECH 

-  '  \  I 


HON.  .JESSE  0.  NORTON, 


ON  THE 


ILLINOIS  CONTESTED  ELECTION. 


DELIVERED 


IN  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES,  JULY  17,  1856. 


WASHINGTON: 

PRINTED  AT  THE  CONGRESSIONAL  GLOBE  OFFICE. 

1856. , 


5  2V- 1 

tJ  53.  V  s 


}  iX>  rt  ' 


ILLINOIS  CONTESTED  ELECTION. 


On  the  Resolutions  reported  from  the  Committee  of  Elec-  i : 
lions  in  the  Contested-Election  Case  from  I  llinois. 

Mr.  NORTON  said: 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  desire  to  submit  a  few  obser¬ 
vations  on  the  matter  before  us;  and  I  will  strictly 
con  %>e  myself  to  the  facts  presented,  after  refer¬ 
ring  to  one  or  two  of  the  positions  assumed  by 
my  colleague,  [Mr.  Ali.en,]  who  has  just  taken  i 
his  seat,  and  by  the  minority  of  the  Committee  i 
of  Elections  in  their  report.  It  was  well  said  by 
the  chairman  of  the  Committee  of  Elections  in 
his  opening  remarks,  that  this  case  lies  within  a 
very  narrow  compass.  It  is  a  question  of  fact — 
of  fact  only.  That  question  is,  whether  the  sit-  jj 
ting  member,  or  the  contestant,  has  received  a 
majority  of  the  votes  of  the  seventh  congressional 
district?  The  sitting  member  claims  that  he 
received  one  vote  more  than  the  contestant.  The 
contestant  claims  that  he  has  received  two  or  three 
votes  more  than  the  sitting  member.  This  is  the 
only  issue  between  the  parties. 

Before  entering  upon  the  consideration  of  the 
facts  presented,  1  will  say  a  word  in  reply  to  cer¬ 
tain  positions  assumed  by  the  sitting  member. 
He  complains  that  the  evidence  hist  taken  was  1 
without  proper  notice  given  to  him.  It  is  ad¬ 
mitted  that  the  notice  was  not  given  strictly 
within  the  time  required,  unless  you  include  the 
day  on  which  the  notice  was  given.  There  would 
then  be  ten  days,  otherwise  but  nine.  Under  the 
strict  rules  of  the  common  law,  before  a  civil 
tribunal,  I  admit  that  the  depositions  might  be  ' 
ruled  out,  and  the  party  required  to  take  new 
evidence.  But  I  submit  whether  this  objection  is 
not  altogether  too  trivial  and  too  technical  to  base 
upon  it  the  rejection  of  the  contestant’s  claim 
to  a  scat  upon  this  floor,  and  of  the  rights  of  the 
majority  of  the  people  of  that  congressional  dis¬ 
trict  to  his  services  here?  I  care  not,  however,  1 
so  far  as  the  argument  which  I  propose  to  sub¬ 
mit  to  this  House  is  concerned,  whether  that 
evidence  be  considered  or  not.  The  contestant 
can  be  shown,  by  the  other  testimony  taken,  to 
be  entitled  to  the  seat.  I  shall  confine  myself  to  f 
testimony  to  which  this  objection  does  not  apply.  ! 


The  other  position  of  my  colleague,  and  of 
the  minority  report,  to  which  I  would  call  atten¬ 
tion,  is,  that  the  contestant’s  notice  of  his  inten¬ 
tion  to  prosecute  his  claim  to  a  seat  is  too  general 
in  its  terms.  The  notice  is  as  follows: 

“  That  the  returns  made  by  the  returnin'*  officers,  as  offi¬ 
cially  announced,  are  incorrect,  and  that  the  poll  books  oi 
the  several  counties  in  this  district  show  that  I  received  a 
majority  of  the  legal  votes  polled  in  the  said  district  for  the 
said  office,  and  am  entitled  to  the  certificate  of  election 
therefrom.” 

It  is  assumed  that  this  notifte  is  not  sufficient 
to  call  the  attention  of  the  sitting  member  to  the 
intended  contestof  the  returns  made  by  the  judges 
and  clerks  of  election.  There  are  two  sets  of 
“  returning  officers”  under  the  laws  of  Illinois. 
The  judges  and  the  clerks  of  elections  arc  consti¬ 
tuted  one  set.  It  is  made  their  duty  by  law  to 
make  a  return  of  tin1  votes  cast  within  four  days 
after  tin;  canvass.  When  the  county  clerk  receives 
the  returns,  it  is  his  duty  to  make  the  returns  to 
the  Secretary  of  State.  Both  these  classes  of 
officers,  under  the  law  of  Illinois,  are  returning 
officers.  The  notice  referred  to  the  “  returning 
officers”  in  general  terms.  It  embraced  both 
classes.  The  contestant  was  therefore  at  liberty 
to  extend  his  investigations  to  both  returns,  or  to 
confine  it  to  one.  Nothing  could  be  clearer  than 
this.  This  position  of  my  colleague  is  therefore 
clearly  untenable,  besides  being  wholly  technical. 

1  now  go  to  the  question,  whether  or  not  the 
contestant  or  the  silting  member  is  entitled  to  the 
scat  in  contest?  The  majority  of  the  Committee 
of  Elections  present  the  case  in  the  true  way- 
They  present  two  resolutions:  one  that  the  sit¬ 
ting  member  is  not,  and  the  other  that  the  con¬ 
testant  is,  entitled  to  the  seat.  I  might  content, 
myself  with  reading  the  certificate  of  the  judges 
and  clerks  of  election,  made  in  March,  1855,  and 
to  which  l  shall  again  allude  as  conclusive  of  the 
whole  case.  1  prefer  to  go  into  the  evidence  more 
indetail;  and  shall  mainly  rely  on  the  errorsfound 
in  the  returns  in  the  Livingston  precinct,  though 
I  may  refer  to  some  other  tacts  if  my  time  allow. 

I  come,  then, in  the  first  place,  to  the  question, 
Was  the  sitting  member  [Mr.  Allen]  elected? 


The  evidence,  as  to  errors  in  the  returns  of  Liv¬ 
ingston  precinct  alone,  shows  conclusively,  to 
my  mind,  that  he  is  not  entitled  to  a  seat  on  this 
floor.  It  shows  clearly  that  he  was  allowed  one 
more  vote  than  he  actually  received.  He  was 
allowed  forty-seven  votes.  The  evidence  shows 
that  he  actually  received  but  forty-six  votes. 

In  the  first  place  I  call  attention  to  the  evidence 
of  Mr.  Hutchinson,  a  political  friend  of  the  sitting 
member,  [Mr.  Allen. J  It  is  as  follows: 

“  We  counted  the  ballots  in  the  ballot-box  at  the  close  of 
said  election;  we  then  counted  the  names  on  the  poll-book 
of  said  election,  and  found  the  number  of  ballots  to  agree  j 
with  the  number  of  names  of  voters  on  the  poll-bOok  ;  there  i 
were  one  hundred  and  forty-nine  of  each  ;  there  appeared  ' 
to  be  at  that  count  forty-seven  for  Mr.  Allen,  and  one  hun¬ 
dred  for  Mr.  Archer;  the  ballots  were  counted  in  the  school- 
house,  in  the  town  of  Livingston,  in  said  county,  at  the  close 
of  said  election,  after  night ;  and  it  was  supposed  that  said 
counting  was  correct,  and  one  of  the  tally-papers  and  one  i 
poll  book  were  accordingly  returned  to  the  clerk  of  the 
county  court  on  the  next  day.” 

In  response  to  another  interrogatory,  Mr. 
Hutchinson  swore  that  “  three  ballots  were 
thrown  aside,  and  counted  neither  for  Mr.  Archer 
nor  for  Mr.  Allen.  ”  Yet  forty-seven  votes  were 
given  to  Mr.  Allen  arid  one  hundred  to  Mr. 
Archer — one  hundred  and  fifty  votes  in  all,  when 
there  were  only  one  hundred  and  forty-nine  names 
on  the  poll-book  and  one  hundred  and  forty-nine 
votes  in  the  box. 

David  Wy rick,  another  of  the  judges,  also  tes¬ 
tifies  as  to  the  count  on  the  night  of  the  election, 
as  follows: 

“  We  found,  on  counting  the  ballots,  that,  there  were  one 
.hundred  and  forty-nine,  one  hundred  of  which  were  for  W. 
B.  Archer,  and  forty-seven  were  for  J.  C.  Alien;  there  |  j 
were  three  ballots  that,  we  considered  at  that  time  as  blank 
votes  for  either  candidate  ;  we  found  on  counting  the  bal¬ 
lots  that  they  agreed  in  number  with  the  voters’  names  on 
the  poll-books;  during  the  counting  of  the  votes  there  was 
a  confusion — the  tallies  did  not  correspond,  when  the  votes 
were  partly  recounted  and  corrected,  as  we  then  supposed.” 

Then,  I  ask,  can  any  reasonable  mind  have  any 
question  that  there  was  a  mistake  committed  in 
the  Livingston  district  of,  at  least,  one  vote? 
There  were  only  one  hundred  and  forty-nine 
voters’  names  on  the  list,  and  one  hundred  and  j 
forty-nine  ballots  in  the  box;  forty-seven  votes 
were  allowed  to  Allen, undone  hundred  to  Archer;  j 
and  three  were  not  counted  at  all — making  one 
hundred  and  fifty.  The  other  witnesses  testify  to 
the  same  effect. 

The  judges  and  the  clerks  were  all  agreed  as  to 
the  number  of  votes  actually  polled,  as  to  the 
number  of  voters’  names  upon  the  poll-books,  as 
to  the  number  of  votes  in  the  ballot-box,  as  to  the 
number  of  votes  allowed  to  each  party,  and  that 
there  were  three  votes  not  counted.  Let  us  see, 
then,  in  whose  favor  the  error  was  made. 
Hutchinson  says: 

“At  the  second  counting,  there  was  a  correction  made  of  | 
the  tally  at  the  first  counting,  by  which  it  appeared  that  the 
clerks  had  made  a  mistake  in  the  tally-list  of  one  vote  in 
favor  of  Allen,  which  said  vote  made  one  more  vote  appear 
than  was  actually  given.” 

Mr.  Wyrick  says,  in  Ins  testimony:  “There 
had  been,  on  the  first  count,  one  more  vote  tallied 
for  Mr.  Allen  than  he  actually  received.” 

Mr.  Birch,  another  of  the  judges,  testifies  as 
follows: 

“Mr.  Hutchinson,  one  of  the  judges,  Mr.  Hanks,  one  of 
the  clerks,  Samuel  It.  Brown,  who  acted  as  clerk  pro  tempore  \  \ 
in  the  absence  of  Mr.  Hollingsliead,  an  absent  clerk,  and  \ 
myself,  one  of  the  judges,  proceeded,  at  my  house  in  Liv-  [1 


ingston ,  on  the  2d  March,  1855,  to  unlock  the  ballot-box  and 
recount  said  votes,  having  sent  for  Mr.  Wyrick,  the  other 
judge  of  said  election,  who  arrived  before  we  were  done 
counting  the  same  ;  when  we  carefully  recounted  the  bal¬ 
lots,  and  found  one  hundred  and  forty-nine,  as  before,  one 
hundred  and  two  of  which  were  for  W.  B.  Archer,  and 
forty-six  for  J.  C.  Allen.  We  now  found  that  one  more 
vote  was  marked  for  Allen  than  he  received,  or  appeared 
on  the  tickets.” 

But  we  are  asked,  how  was  this  mistake  made  ? 
That  also  is  settled  by  the  testimony,  which  I 
will  read.  Mr.  Hollingshead  says: 

“  The'  ballots,  after  the  polls  were  closed,  were  taken  out 
and  counted,  and  the  lists  of  the  voters’  names  were  each 
found  to  be  one  hundred  and  forty-nine.  In  counting  out 
the  votes,  E.  M.  Hanks,  one  of  the  clerks,  had  one  more 
vote  for  Mr.  Allen  than  I  had,  and  I  had  one  vote  more  for 
Mr.  Archer  than  he  had.  I  told  Mr.  Hanks  I  did  not  hear 
him  call  some  time  back,  and  told  him  I  thought  the  mis¬ 
take  occurred  about  five  tickets  back.  The  judges  ordered 
us  to  compare  five  tickets  back,  which  we  did,  and  then  we 
supposed  he  was  l  ight  in  the  count,  when  I  marked  o  f  one 
vote  from  my  tally-paper  for  W.  B.  Archer,  and  he  left  his 
stand  for  Mr.  Allen;  there  were  one  hundred  and  forty- 
nine  votes  polled  at  sr^id  election,  one  hundred  of  which 
were  counted  for  W.  B.  Archer,  and  forty-seven  for  J.  C. 
Allen ;  and  that  the  same  was  so  certified  by  us,  sealed  up, 
and  given  into  the  bands  of  one  of  the  judges.” 

The  testimony  of  Mr.  Hanks  is  to  the  same 
effect. 

Now,  then,  here  is  the  point  at  which  the  error 
occurred.  There  was  confusion  at  the  end  of 
the  canvass,  and  they  concluded  that  it  occurred 
during  the  counting  of  the  last  five  ballots,  and 
they  went  back  five  ballots.  They  erred  in  not 
going  back  far  enough.  It  appears  that  o*  the 
second  count  on  the  second  of  March,  there  were 
actually  found  in  the  ballot  box  but  forty -six  votes 
for  Allen,  while  at  the  first  count  he  was  allowed 
forty-seven.  Taking  this  one  vote  from  Allen, 
the  tally-list,  the  names  on  the  poll-books,  and 
the  votes  in  the  ballot-box,  all  agree — being  one 
hundred  and  forty-nine. 

I  say,  then,  that  it  has  been  clearly  shown  that 
there  was  one  too  many  votes  counted  upon  the 
first  count.  It  has  been  shown,  again,  that  during 
that  count  there  was  one  vote  scratched  off  the 
list  which  had  been  allowed  to  Archer,  and  one 
left  on  for  Allen,  about  which  the  dispute  arose; 
and  that  on  a  recount  on  the  second  of  March, 
the  ballot-box  was  found  to  contain  only  forty  - 
six  votes  for  Allen.  Now,  I  appeal  to  the  com¬ 
mon  sense  of  gentlemen — 1  put  it  to  the  justice 
of  this  House,  and  to  its  candor,  to  say  whether 
it  is  not  manifest  that  there  was  a  mistake  made; 
that  it  was  made  in  favor  of  Allen,  and  that  he 
was  allowed  one  more  vote  than  he  actually 
received  ? 

Now,  let  me  ask  gentlemen  what  would  be  the 
effect,  if  that  alone  were  true,  on  the  decision  of 
this  House  as  to  this  contested  case?  If  it  be  true 
that  one  more  vote  was  allowed  to  Mr.  Allen  than 
was  given  to  him,  what  is  the  inevitable  result  ? 
You  may  say  it  is  a  small  matter — but  a  single 
vote;  but  if  Mr.  Allen  was  elected  by  that  one 
vote,  he  is  as  much  entitled  to  his  seat  on  this 
floor,  and  his  constituents  are  as  much  entitled 
to  his  services,  as  if  he  were  elected  by  a  majority 
of  one  hundred,  or  one  thousand.  And,  on  the 
contrary,  if  he  has  been  defeated  for  the  lack  of  a 
single  ballot,  that  one  ballot  becomes  as  import¬ 
ant  as  if  he  were  defeated  by  one  hundred  or  one 
thousand  votes. 

But,  I  repeat,  if  it  be  true  that  Mr.  Allen  was 
allowed  one  vote  more  than  he  had  received,  what 


5 


% 


% 


would  be  the  effect?  Why,  it  would  make  a  tie; 
and  as  far  as  Mr.  Allen  is  concerned ,  he  would  be 
no  more  entitled  to  a  seat  on  this  floor  than  he 
would  be  had  he  not  received  a  single  vote  at  that 
election.  I  undertake  to  say,  without  going  further 
into  the  testimony  on  that  head,  that,  according 
to  the  evidence  of  all  the  judges,  of  all  the  clerks, 
given  without  contradiction,  without  conflict, 
unhesitatingly,  whatever  may  be  the  case  with 
regard  to  Mr.  Archer,  Mr.  Allen  is  not  entitled 
to  a  seat  on  this  floor.  From  this  conclusion 
there  is  no  possible  escape. 

But  the  question  may  be  asked,  and  has  been 
asked,  why,  if  this  error  was  committed,  it  was 
not  corrected  at  the  time  before  the  judges  sent  i 
up  the  returns  to  the  county  clerk,  or  before  the  ; 
county  clerk  sent  them  to  the  Secretary  of  State? 
Well,  sir,  two  of  the  witnesses  have  answered 
hat  question,  and  I  will  read  their  testimony. 

The  question  was  put  to  Mr.  Wyrick,  anil  his 
answer  is: 

“  We  thought  we  had  corrected  it,  and  did  not  know  that 
any  error  existed  at  that  time,  nor  until  the  2d  day  of  March, 
1355,  when  we  supposed  that  the  error  was  in  giving  Mr. 
Allen  one  more  vote  than  lie  was  entitled  to.” 

Mr.  Hutchinson,  in  answer  to  the  same  ques¬ 
tion,  says: 

“  The  mistake  was  not  discovered  at  that  time.” 

You  may  say,  how  was  it  possible  that  it  should 
not  be  discovered?  Why,  it  arose  simply  from 
the  fact  of  the  hurry  of  the  count  on  election  : 
night.  They  *did  not  stop  to  hunt  up  and  see 
whether  the  aggregate  number  of  votes  allowed 
the  parties,  and  those  disallowed,  corresponded 
with  those  found  in  the  ballot-box. 

Mr.  Birch  makes  a  similar  statement.  He  says 
he  thought  the  first  vote  was  correct.  He  did  not 
know  any  error  at  that  time,  nor  till  the  2d  of 
March,  1855. 

Mr.  Flanks  says: 

“The  judges  and  clerks  did  not  discover  that,  by  giving 
Archer  one  hundred  votes,  and  Allen  forty  seven,  when 
counted  together  with  the  three  votes  which  were  thrown 
out  and  not  counted  for  either,  the  total  vote  ea.-t.  or  ballots  [ 
in  the  box,  would  be  one  hundred  and  fifty,  or  one  more 
than  the  number  of  ballots  counted  out.” 

I  come  now,  Mr.  Speaker — having,  I  think,  j 
sufficiently  shown  that  Mr.  Allen  is  not  entitled 
to  his  seat — to  another  branch  of  the  inquiry; 
which  is,  whether  the  contestant  is  entitled  to  a 
seat  on  this  floor?  I  will  read  to  the  House  the 
certificate  of  the  judges  and  clerks  on  their  second 
count;  and,  as  1  said  in  the  outset,  it  seems  to 
me  to  be  conclusive  of  this  whole  case,  even  in¬ 
dependent  of  the  evidence  to  which  1  have  alluded 
in  my  preceding  remarks,  and  the  argument 
which  I  endeavored  to  base  upon  it.  And  be  it 
remembered,  that  three  out  of  these  five  men 
who  made  this  certificate,  were  the  political  friends 
of  my  colleague,  the  sitting  member — men  who, 
by  no  possibility,  could  be  induced  to  do  injustice 
to  him;  so  that  it  cannot  be  said  that  they  were 
induced  to  reverse  their  decision  on  any  other 
grounds  than  of  justice,  of  equity,  and  of  truth: 
State  of  Illinois,  Clark  county : 

VVe,  the  undersigned,  judges  and  clerk  of  the  general  | 
election  in  said  county  of  Clark,  and  of  Livingston  pre¬ 
cinct,  east  of  Mar-hall,  on  the  7th  day  of  November  last 
past,  1854,  do  hereby  certify,  that,  on  a  review  and  count 
|>f  the  ballots  this  day  made  with  care  and  to  our  satisfac-  | 
non — the  ballots  being  on  the  said  7th  of  November  put 
into  a  box,  locked  and  kept  in  the  hands  of  one  of  the  \ 
judges,  to  wit:  II.  11.  Hutchinson,  as  required  by  law — in  }j 


•  the  return  made  to  the  clerk  of  the  county  court,  we  gave 
'  a  certificate  that  William  B.  Archer  had  one  hundred 
votes,  and  that  James  C.  Allen  had  forty-seven  votes,  the 
j  said  Archer  and  Allen  being  the  only  candidates  running  to 
represent  the  seventh  congressional  district  in  said  I8tat3 
of  Illinois  in  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  ;  that  we 
|  find  an  error  was  made  in  said  count  and  return  ;  and  that 
!  it  clearly  appears  that  at  said  election  said  Archer  truly 
;  received  one  hundred  and  two  votes,  and  said  Allen  got 
forty-six  votes,  which  error  we  now  correct  under  our 
oaths,  taken  as  judges  and  clerk,  (the  other  clerk,  Mr. 
IlollingShead,  not  being  present  this  day,)  one  hundred  and 
two  (102)  to  said  Archer,  and  forty-six  (4G)  to  James  C. 
Allen.  All  of  which  we  hereby  certify  under  our  oaths 
taken,  and  our  hands  and  seals. 

HENRY  H.  HUTCHINSON,  [l.  s.] 

DAVID  WYRICK,  [l.  s.] 

J.J.  BIRCH,  [l.  s.] 

ELZA  M.  HANKS,  Clerk .  [l.  s.] 

i  March  2,1855. 

Now,  then,  I  ask  you  whether,  in  the  absence 
of  all  other  testimony  on  the  part  of  the  contestant, 
this  statement  of  the  judges — men  whose  minds 
i  could  not  be  biased  by  any  political  considera¬ 
tions  in  favor  of  the  contestant,  or  against  the 
sitting  member — would  not  of  itself  be  conclu- 
sive  ?  Mr.  Allen  only  claims  that  he  was  elected 
by  a  majority  of  one.  This  certificate  from  the 
judges  of  the  Livingston  precinct  shows  that  one 
vote  was  improperly  counted  for  Mr.  Allen,  and 
two  refused  to  Mr.  Archer,  to  which  he  was 
justly  entitled,  giving  to  Mr.  Archer,  on  a  careful 
recount,  in  that  precinct,  one  hundred  and  two 
votes,  and  to  Mr.  Allen  forty-six  votes  only. 
That  would  give  Mr.  Archer  a  majority  of  two 
in  the  second  district  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  and 
entitle  him  as  clearly  to  a  seat  on  this  floor  as 
I  though  he  had  a  hundred,  or  one  thousand  ma¬ 
jority. 

But,  sir,  it  is  said  by  my  colleague  [  r. 

I  Allen]  that  these  were  not  judges’  at  the  time  of 
making  this  certificate,  though  they  were  form¬ 
erly  judges;  that  they  were  thus  acting  without 
authority;  that  their  terms  had  expired;  that 
they,  and  the  clerks  of  election,  wer e  fundi  officio, 
and  that  they  had  no  authority  to  act  further  in 
reference  to  that  election.  Now,  that  depends 
on  circumstances.  It  depends  on  the  law  of 
Illinois.  The  election  act  (Rev  .Stat. ,  p.  215)  pro¬ 
vides  as  follows: 

“Sec.  8.  The  county  commissioners’  courts  shall,  re¬ 
spectively,  at  the  last  stated  term  preceding  any  election, 
appoint  three  capable  and  discreet  persons,  possessing  the 
qualifications  of  electors,  to  act  as  judges  of  elections  in 
each  election  precinct. 

“Sec-.  9.  'Die  said  judges  of  the  election  shall  choose 
two  persons  having  similar  qualifications  with  themselves, 
to  act  as  clerks  of  election.  The  said  judges  of  tiie  elec¬ 
tion  shall  be  and  continue  judges  of  all  elections  of  civil 
officers  to  be  held  within  their  precinct,  until  other  judges 
shall  be  appointed,  as  hereinbefore  directed,  and  the  said 
clerks  may  continue  to  act  as  such  during  the  pleasure  of 
the  judges  of  election.” 

Now,  sir,  I  undertake  to  say,  that  you  might  as 
well  assume  that,  when  this  Congress  adjourns, 
you  have  vacated  your  office  ns  Speaker  of  this 
blouse;  you  might  as  well  say  that,  when  the 
Supreme  Court  adjourns  its  session,  the  judges 
are  fundi  officio,  as  to  say  that  the  judges  of 
election  were  out  of  office  when  the  day  of  elec¬ 
tion  had  passed.  Aqd  you  might  as  well  declare 
that  the  Clerk  of  this  House  has  lost  his  office, 
and  that  the  office  is  vacant  when  the  House  ad¬ 
journs,  as  to  say  that  these  clerks  of  the  election 
lost  their  olficcs  when  the  election  was  over.  The 
law  of  Illinois,  just  cited,  provides  that  the  judges 


6 


of  election  shall  remain  judges,  and  that  the  clerks 
shall  remain  clerks,  until  their  successors  are 
appointed  and  qualified.  The  judges  of  elections 
are  appointed  by  the  county  courts  prior  to  the 
elections,  and  the  clerks  are  appointed  by  the 
judges  of  elections,  and  both  hold  their  places  until 
their  successors  are  installed  into  office.  There 
is  no  pretense  that  other  judges  or  clerks  had 
been  appointed. 

Now,  then,  I  ask  you,  Mr.  Speaker — I  ask  this 
House,  what  becomes  of  the  statement  of  the 
sitting  member,  that  these  judges  and  these  clerks 
were  irresponsible  men,  acting  without  oath  and 
without  authority?  Clearly,  sir,  by  the  provis¬ 
ions  of  the  Illinois  statutes,  from  which  I  have 
read,  they  were,  at  the  time  these  supplemental 
returns  were  made  out,  really  and  legally  judges 
and  clerks  of  elections.  That  point,  it  seems  to 
me,  is  beyond  controversy. 

The  sitting  member  has  suggested  to  the  House 
that  these  judges  may  have  been  temporarily 
appointed  on  the  day  of  the  election.  But,  sir,  it  is 
a  sufficient  reply  to  this  to  say  that  the  presump¬ 
tion  of  law  is,  that  those  were  judges  regularly 
appointed,  unless  the  contrary  is  shown.  It  is 
manifest,  then,  sir,  that  those  men  were  acting 
under  their  oaths  of  office,  that  these  votes  were 
carefully  recounted,  arid  that  from  that  recount  it 
appeared  that  in  the  original  returns  one  too  many 
votes  were  allowed  to  the  sitting  member,  and 
that  two  too  few  were  allowed  to  the  contestant. 
If  that  be  so,  there  is,  then,  an  end  of  the  whole 
controversy,  and  the  contestant  was  elected  by  a 
majority  of  two  votes. 

But  the  contestant  has  not  contented  himself 
with  producing  this  certificate  and  the  amended 
returns  of  the  judges  and  clerks,  so  clear  and  con¬ 
clusive  in  their  character,  but  he  has,  after  due 
notice  to  the  sitting  member,  taken  the  depositions 
of  the  judgesand  clerks  of  the  elections,  and,  under 
oath,  they  have  testified  to  the  correctness  of 
these  supplemental  returns.  I  read  from  the  tes¬ 
timony  of  those  judges.  Mr.  Hutchinson  says: 

“  The  ballot-box  was  taken  by  myself  on  the  2d  day  of 
March,  1855,  as  one  of  the  judges,  to  the  house  of  Johnson 
J.  Birch,  another  of  the  judges  ;  and  in  the  presence  of  E. 
M.  Hanks,  one  of  the  clerks,  and  Samuel  It.  Brown,  who, 
in  the  absence  of  Mr.  Hollingshead,  the  other  clerk,  was 
appointed  a  clerk  pro  tempore,  and  by  their  assistance  the 
box  was  unlocked  and  the  ballots  recounted ;  and  at  the 
conclusion  of  the  counting  Mr.  Wyrick,  the  other  judge, 
was  sent  for  and  came  in  and  assisted  us.  There  was  at  the 
aforesaid  time  a  careful  examination  had  and  recount  of  the 
ballots,  and  one  hundred  and  forty  nine  ballots  were  found 
in  the  box,  which  number  corresponded  with  the  number 
of  names  on  the  poll  books,  and  on  that  counting  we  found 
one  hundred  and  two  ballots  for  William  B.  Archer,  and 
forty-six  for  Mr.  James  C.  Allen  ;  and  on  that  counting  two 
of  three  ballots  which  were  at  firi-t  thrown  aside  were 
counted  for  William  B.  Archer,  and  the  other  ballot  was 
not  counted  for  either  Mr.  Archer  or  Mr.  Allen,  for  the  rea¬ 
son  that  both  the  names  of  J.  C.  Allen  and  William  B. 
Archer  were  stricken  therefrom.” 

Mr.  Birch  says: 

“Mr.  Hutchinson,  one  of  the  judges,  Mr.  Hanks,  one  of 
the  clerks,  Samuel  It.  Brown,  who  acted  as  clerk  pro  tem¬ 
pore  in  the  absence  of  Mr.  Uollingshead,  an  absent  clerk, 
and  myself,  one  of  the  judges,  proceeded,  at  my  house  in 
Livingston,  on  flic  2d  March,  1855,  to  unlock  the  ballot  box 
and  recount  said  votes,  bavins  sent  for  Mr.  Wyrick,  the 
otiier  judge  of  said  election,  who  arrived  before  we  were 
done  counting  the  same;  when  we  carefully  recounted  the 
ballots,  and  found  one  hundred  and  forty-nine,  as  before, 
one  hundred  and  two  of  which  were  for  YV.  B.  Archer,  and 
forty-six  for  J.  C.  Allen.  We  now  found  that  one  more 
vote  was  marked  for  Allen  than  he  received,  or  appeared  on 


the  tickets.  There  were,  on  the  recounting,  two  votes  that 
were  not  counted  for  either  at  the  first  count,  tiiat  were 
now  counted  for  W.  B.  Archer,  and  one  that  was  not 
counted  for  either  candidate  at  either  the  counting  or  re¬ 
counting,  by  reason  of  the  names  of  both  Archer  and  Allen 
being  scratched  oft';  which  said  ballots  are  the  same  that 
are  now  attached  to  the  deposition  of  H.  H.  Hutchinson, 
when  we  made  a  corrected  return,  and  sent  the  same  to  tbs 
county  clerk  on  the  9th  March,  1855.” 

Mr.  Wyrick  says: 

“  When  [  arrived  at  the  house  of  Mr.  Birch,  they  had 
finished  the  counting  except  three  disputed  tickets,  being 
the  same  that  were  thrown  aside  at  the  first  counting,  one 
of  which  was  thrown  aside  as  on  the  first  counting,  having 
the  names  of  both  candidates  scratched  off;  the  other  two, 
after  a  careful  examination,  were  given  to  W.  B.  Areher, 
making  one  hundred  and  two  votes  for  W.  B.  Archer,  and 
for  J.  C.  Allen,  forty-six,  there  having  been,  on  the  first 
count,  one  vote  more  tallied  for  J.  C.  Allen  than  he  actually 
received.” 

The  testimony  of  Hollingshead  and  Hanks  is 
to  the  same  effect,  and  I  will  not  take  up  the  time 
by  reading  it. 

But  still  another  count  was  made.  And  be  it 
remembered  that  these  counts  were  all  made  be¬ 
fore  the  Governor  had  issued  his  certificate  to 
any  member  of  this  Congress  from  Illinois.  The 
third  count  occurred  on  the  14th  of  April.  What 
was  the  result  of  it? 

Mr.  Birch  says: 

“And  when  we  had  made  out  said  return,  [the  amended 
return  of  March  2, 1855,]  we  put  the  ballots  hack  in  the  box, 
and  locked  it  up.  I  .  took  and  kept  the  box,  and  Mr.  Hutch¬ 
inson  kept  the  key.  The  box  remained,  in  my  possession 
until  the  May  election,  1855,  when  Mr.  Hutchinson  and 
myself  opened  It  and  took  out  the  ballots,  and  wrapped 
them  up  carefully  in  a  paper,  and  tied  them  with  a  string, 
until  the  box  was  returned  the  next  day,  when  they  were 
again  put  into  it,  and  the  box  locked  up,  and  there  remained 
until  all  the  judges  and  clerks  were  present,  on  yesterday, 
when  the  box  was  again  opened  and  the  votes  recounted, 
with  tlie  same  result  as  on  the  second  counting,  and  I  am 
confident  that  the  ballots  have  not  been  altered  since  they 
were  voted  at  the  election.” 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  give  the  testimony  on  this 
point  in  full,  and  in  the  very  language  of  the  wit¬ 
ness,  in  order  to  do  away  with  the  impression 
sought  to  he  made  by  the  speech  of  my  colleague, 
that  there  was  some  hocus  pocus  in  regard  to  these 
recounts.  The  testimony  cannot  be  mistaken; 
and,  if  gentlemen  consider  it  dispassionately, 
there  will  he  little  doubt  as  to  what  determination 
they  will  make  of  this  case. 

Mr.  Hutchinson  testifies  that,  after  the  count 
on  the  2d  March,  1855: 

“  The  ballots  and  poll-book  were  carefully  gathered  up, 
put  in  the  ballot-box,  locked  up,  and  delivered  into  the  pos¬ 
session  of  Johnson  J.  Birch,  and  I  retained  the  key  myself. 
They  were  again  on  this  day  (April  14,  1856)  examined  by 
myself,  David  Wyrick,  and  Johnson  J.  Birch,  the  judges, 
and  Mr.  Elza  M.  Hanks  and  James  Hollingshead,  the  clerks 
of  said  election  ;  and  at  said  examination  there  were  found 
one  hundred  and  forty-nine  ballots  in  the  box,  and  one 
hundred  and  two  of  them  were  for  William  B.  Archer,  and 
forty-six  for  Mr.  Allen.” 

Mr.  Wyrick  says: 

“On  the  14th  April,  1856,  Mr.  H.  II.  Hutchinson,  J.  J. 
Birch,  and  myself,  as  judges,  and  James  Hollingshead  and 
E.  M.  Hanks,  the  clerks  of  said  election,  again  proceeded 
to  meet  at  the  court-house  in  said  county,  to  recount  the 
votes  aforesaid,  with  the  same  result.,  after  a  careful  exam¬ 
ination,  as  on  the  2d  of  March,  A.  D.  1855.” 

Mr.  Hollingshead  testifies  to  the  same  facts. 
So  does  Mr.  Hanks.  • 

Now,  sir,  what  can  he  said,  I  ask,  in  regard 
to  this  accumulation  of  testimony,  in  no  way 


7 


conflicting,  clear,  decisive,  and  to  the  point?  It 
settles,  beyond  cavil  or  doubt,  the  fact,  that  the 
contestant  is  entitled  to  two  more  votes  than  he 
was  allowed  in  the  first  returns  of  the  Livingston 
precinct,  and  that  he  has,  at  least,  a  majority  of 
two  .votes  in  the  district.  But,  sir,  it  is  argued 
#her£  by  my  colleague,  [Mr.  Allen,]  that  these 
ballots  may  not  be  the  same,  that  there  was  no 
law  in  regard  to  their  being  kept,  and  that  the 
boxes  may  have  been  opened.  Sir,  the  question 
isfcribt  whether  there  was  any  law  in  regard  to 
the  manner  in  which  the  ballots  should  be  kept, 
or  even  any  law  requiring  them  to  be  kept  at  all; 
or  whether  this  ballot-box  was  kept  in  legal  cus- 
tjxly?  but  the  question  for  the  House  to  decide 
•  is,  were  those  ballots  kept  ?  Were  tlfey  truly 
4  kept — kept  safely?  or,  in  other  words,  are  they 

the  same  ballot!* which  were  cast  at  the  election? 

Now  what  is  the  testimony  upon  that  point? 
I  have  read,  in  discussing  another  point,  the  tes¬ 
timony  of  several  witnesses,  bringing  out  inci¬ 
dentally  some  facts  in  regard  to  the  keeping  of 
the  ballot-boxes  and  the  ballots.  Listen  to  the 
evidence.  This  is  what  Mr.  Birch  says  about  it: 

“  Question  second.  At  the  conclusion  of  the  first  counting 
did  you,  in  pursuance  of  the  sixteenth  section  of  the  act  of 
1849,  in  relation  to  elections,  proceed  to  place  the  poll  list 
in  die  ballot-box,  lock  the  same  up,  and  put  the  seal  of  one 
or  more  of  the  judges  of  said  election  thereon,  so  as  en¬ 
tirely  to  cover  the  opening  in  the  lid  or  top  of  said  box,  and 
deliver  the  key  to  one  of  said  judges,  and  the  box  to  another  ? 
and  if  so,  state  whether  the  judge  in  whose  possession  the 
box  was  placed  had  any  means  of  opening  the  same  without 
force  r 

“ Answer .  I  did  ;  and  placed  also  in  the  box,  at  the  same 
time,  the  ballots,  and  a  copy  of  the  certificate  and  tally- 
paper;  that  the  fastening  on  the  under  side  of  the  lid  was 
adjusted,  and  the  box  then  locked  ;  and  when  so  fixed, 
nothing  can  get  into  or  out  of  the  box  without  force,  unless 
the  box  should  first  be  unlocked.  Mr.  Hutchinson,  the 
judge  into  whose  possession  the  box  was  delivered,  had  no 
means,  to  my  knowledge,  of  getting  into  the  box,  but  after¬ 
wards  obtained  a  key,  with  which  he  could  unlock  it,  as  he 
states.  I  believe  the  ballots  have  been  caref  ully  kept,  and 
that  they  were  the  same  voted  at  the  election.” 

Mr.  Hutchinson  says: 

“  Question  fourth  by  Mr.  Archer.  State  what  was  done 
with  the  ballots  after  they  were  counted,  and  in  whose  pos¬ 
session  they  were  placed? 

“  Answer.  The  ballots  were  placed  in  the  ballot-box,  and 
locked  up,  and  the  box  put  in  my  possession,  and  not 
opened,  to  the  best  of  my  knowledge,  until  the  2d  day  of 
March,  1855 ;  I  kept  the  box  carefully  until  the  2d  of  51  arch, 
1855.” 


Mr.  Wyrick  says: 

“The  ballots,  one  poll  book,  and  one  tally-paper,  were 
put  in  the  ballot  box,  and  then  the  box  was  locked  up, 
which  Mr.  Hutchinson  took  home  with  him.” 


Another  witness  states  that  the  opening  of  the 
box,  through  which  the  ballots  were  received,  was 
also  fastened,  so  that  nothing  could  be  either  nut 
into,  or  taken  out  of,  the  box,  unless  the  lid 
of  the  box  was  forced;  or,  in  other  words,  that 
precisely  the  same  steps  were  taken  in  regard  to 
the  ballot-box,  which  the  law  requires  shall  be 
taken  at  any  temporary  adjournment  during  the 
day.  The  gentleman  behind  me  denies  my  state- 
nfcnt,  and  suggests  that  the  laws  of  the  State 
require  one  man  to  keep  the  ballot-box,  and  an- 

%rUj^:l%nan  the  key,  during  a  temporary  adjourn- 
'•WtJJt  on  the  day  of  election.  What  I  stated  is 
'frtie^nd  that  is  precisely  what  was  done  in  this 
cas*  One  man  did  keep  the  box,  a,nd  another 
«W?ifckey. 

*  Mr.  STEPHENS.  The  evidence  is,  that  the 


key  was  lost.  There  is  no  evidence  that  the  indi¬ 
vidual  who  took  the  key,  kept  it.  The  evidence 
shows  that  there  are  two  keys  which  unlocked 
the  box. 

Mr.  NORTON.  Yes,  sir,  Mr.  Hutchinson  kept 
the  box,  and  Mr.  Birch  kept  the  key.  That  key 
was  lost;  and  no  other  key  has  ever  been  heard 
of  which  would  unlock  the  box,  except  the  one 
procured  by  Mr.  Hutchinson  on  the  2d  of  March, 
when  the  box  was  opened  for  a  recount. 

Now,  let  me  ask  the  gentleman  from  Georgia, 
what  other  or  greater  precautions  could  have 
been  taken  for  the  safe-keeping  of  the  ballots? 
What  pretense  can  there  be  that  they  were  not 
so  kept?  What  chance  there  could  be  for  the  vio¬ 
lation  of  the  ballot-box  by  anybody,  without  the 
knowledge  of  Hutchinson?  What  ground  of 
suspicion ,  even ,  that  any  one  else  had  a  key  with 
which  the  box  could  be  opened?  I  put  it  to  him 
as  a  lawyer  to  say  whether  the  presumptions  are 
not  all  the  other  way  ? 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  That  comes  directly  to  a 
material  point,  and  I  answer  the  gentleman  with 
pleasure.  The  key  might  have  been  stolen  by 
some  person  entirely  unknown  to  the  officers. 
The  fact  is,  that  it  was  lost,  and  has  never  been 
found;  and  there  is  a  possibility  that  somebody 
might  have  got  into  the  box  with  it.  The  testi¬ 
mony  does  not  exclude  the  possibility. 

Mr.  NORTON.  Yes,  sir;  it  says  that  the  key 
was  lost.  There  is  no  pretense  that  it  was  ever 
found,  or  that  it  was  ever  in  the  possession  of 
any  one  afterwards. 

Mr.  STEPHENS.  It  only  says  that  it  went 
out  of  the  possession  of  one  of  the  judges  of  the 
election,  and  he  does  not  know  where  it  went. 
That  is  the  only  testimony  that  it  was  lost.  He 
put  it  away  and  somebody  got  it — he  does  not 
know  who. 

Mr.  NORTON.  There  is  not  a  particle  of 
testimony  to  show  that  anybody  ever  got  it. 
The  evidence  is  unequivocal,  not  that  anybody 
got  it,  but  that  it  was  lost.  Possibility  !  possi¬ 
bility  !  Why,  sir,  possibilities  like  this  would 
not  serve  to  save  men  from  the  gallows  if  on  trial 
for  murder.  I  put  it  to  the  common  sense  of  this 
Blouse,  if,  upon  a  charge  of  larceny  or  forgery, 
or  of  passing  counterfeit  money,  a  possibility  no 
stronger  than  this  would  acquit  a  man  ?  Never, 
sir,  never.  There  is  not  one  case  in  fifty  where 
stronger  proof  of  the  safe-keeping,  or  the  iden¬ 
tity  of  the  coin  or  bills  upon  which  a  criminal 
charge  is  predicated,  is  produced  in  a  court  of 
justice,  than  is  brought  forward  in  this  case. 

Mr.  STEPBIENS.  I  stand  distinctly  upon  a 
point  of  law.  The  law  says  the  box  shall  be  put 
in  the  hands  of  one  of  the  judges,  and  the  key  in 
the  hands  of  the  other.  That  is  a  requisition  of 
law.  The  testimony  is,  that  the  key  went  into 
the  hands  of  one  of  the  judges,  who  swears  that 
it  was  lost.  When  the  key  was  lost,  might  not 
somebody  have  got  it?  Is  the  requirement  of  the 
law  answered?  Is  there  not  a  possibility  that 
somebody  got  it?  The  object  of  the  law  was, 
that  there  should  be  no  possibility,  by  one  hold¬ 
ing  the  box,  and  another  the  key.  1  say,  sir, 
that  the  testimony  is,  that  the  key  was  lost;  and 
when  that  is  established,  the  possibility  is  that 
somebody  might  have  got  it.  And  that  is  the 
argument. 

Mr.  NORTON.  The  gentleman  argues  that 


8 


the  provision  of  the  election  law  governing  the 
disposition  of  the  box  and  the  key,  on  the  day  of 
the  election,  should  be  carried  out  strictly  in  a 
case,  like  this.  Now,  I  ask  you,  suppose,  on 
election  day,  for  which  alone  this  law  was  en¬ 
acted,  that  the  box  should  be  placed  in  the  hands 
of  one  of  the  judges,  and  the  key  in  the  hands  of 
another,  and  by  any  accident  that  key  should  be 
lost  by  the  man  in  possession,  while  going  from 
the  place  of  election  to  his  dinner:  will  any  one 
here  contend  that  on  that  account  the  ballots  in 
the  box  should  be  rejected,  and  the  election  set 
aside?  Suppose  he  were  robbed,  or  drowned, 
.  or  should  abscond:  must  the  ballots  be  rejected? 
The  gentleman  says,  “  the  box  should  be  placed 
in  the  hands  of  one,  and  the  key  in  the  hands  of 
another.”  Very  well;  precisely  that  was  done. 
The  box  went  into  the  hands  of  Mr.  Hutchinson, 
and  the  key  into  the  hands  of  Mr.  Birch. 

But,  sir,  I  need  not  spend  time  upon  this.  The 
proof  is  clear  and  conclusive  that  the  ballots  were 
safely  kept.  But,  besides  all  this,  the  evidence 
of  all  the  judges  and  clerks  is,  that  the  disputed 
ballots  were  recognized  and  identified  on  the  second 
count — recognized  and  identified  as  the  same  bal¬ 
lots  had  under  consideration  on  the  night  of  elec¬ 
tion. 

But  my  colleague  [Mr.  Allen]  asks,  “How  is  it 
that  these  judges  could  examine  these  ballots  so 
much  more  accurately  four  months  after  the  trans¬ 
action,  and  in  the  night  time,  than  they  could  on 
the  day  of  election,  under  the  light  of  the  noon¬ 
day  sun?”  My  colleague  must  have  forgotten: 
the  proof  is,  that  the  first  count  was  in  the  night 
time,  whilst  the  second  and  third  were  by  day¬ 
light  ! 

My  colleague  complains  of  the  loss  of0the  two 
ballots  since  they  reached  here.  Sir,  the*  con¬ 
testant  laments  it  too.  He  was  at  great  pains  to 
bring  them  here,  and  has  endeavored  to  have 
them  found,  but  in  vain. 

My  colleague  inquires  how  Mr.  Archer  could 
have  learned  that  there  was  a  mistake  in  Living¬ 
ston  precinct?  There  was  no  difficulty  in  that. 
A  bare  comparison  of  the  poll-book  with  the  tally- 
list  on  file  in  the  clerk’s  office  would  show  that, 
to  any  one  who  also  understood  that  three  votes 
had  been  rejected. 

My  colleague  complains  that  he  had  no  notice 
of  the  recount.  It  was  not  necessary  that  he  should 
have.  He  had  notice  of  the  taking  of  depositions, 
when  the  result  of  the  recount  was  proved,  and 
he  was  present  by  his  attorney. 

A  few  words  now,  Mr.  Speaker,  as  to  the  ille¬ 
gal  votes,  of  which  much  has  been  said,  and  I 
have  done. 

I  concede  that  nothing  has  been  shown  by  the 
contestant  in  regard  to  Towel’s  vote. 

In  regard  to  James  Cowden,I  am  satisfied  that 
he  was  not  a  legal  voter;  and  that  he  did  vote  for 
Allen.  It  is  true,  that  part  of  the  testimony  is 
hearsay;  but  he  could  not  be  compelled  to  testify; 
his  evidence  would  criminate  himself.  The  poll- 


books  show  that  he  voted.  It  is  sufficiently  proved 
that  he  was  under  age.  He  stated  again  and  again 
that  he  voted  for  Allen— stated  so  when  it  was 
against  his  interest.  It  is  also  proved,  and  it  is  a 
part  of  the  res  gesta,  that  he  was  actively  engaged 
in  electioneering  for  Allen  by  Mr.  Ruckur,*vho 
swears  that  “the  whole  £owden  family,  ffom^ 
Genesis  to  Revelations,  electioneered  for  Mr. 

Allen — I  mean  the  male  portion  of  them.” 

Joseph  Lowry  swears  that  he  voted  for  Archer. 

My  colleague  contends  that  his  vote  shoulJ  fee 
rejected,  on  the  ground  that  he  had  not  been  a 
resident  of  the  State  for  a  year  previous  to  the1 
election.  It  would  be  a  sufficient  reply  to  this  to 
say  that  Jdie  only  evidence'  on  this  point  is  th<?«* 
taken  in  April,  1855,  and  which  my  colleague  • 
earnestly  contends  should  not  be  allowed  for  # 
want  of  notice  to  him.  This  objection  goes  to  the 
whole  evidence,  if  to  any  of  it.  But  I  submit 
that  the  sitting  member  has  not  shown  Lowry  to 
have  been  anon-resident.  Lowry  says:  “  I  was 
in  the  State  of  Illinois  in  the  fall  of  1852,  and 
stayed  some  three  or  four  weeks,  and  left  two 
shirts,  and  never  returned  until  the  6th  of  March, 

1854.”  The  question  of  residence  is  peculiarly 
one  of  intention.  It  may  be  obtained  as  well  in 
four  weeks  as  four  years.  If  a  party  settles  in  a 
place  with  the  intention  of  remaining,  he  gains 
a  residence  at  once.  That  a  party  leaving  the 
State  with  the  intention  of  returning,  does  not  lose 
his  residence,  is  too  clear  a  proposition  to  need 
any  argument  to  sustain  it.  That  Lowry  left 
with  the  intention  of  returning  is  manifest,  and 
that  he  actually  returned  eight  months  before  the 
election  is  clearly  proved.  I  submit,  then,  that 
his  place  of  residence  was  in  no  way  affected  by 
his  temporary  absence.  He  is  to  be  regarded  as 
a  resident  of  the  State  from  the  fall  of  1852.  In¬ 
numerable  cases  have  occurred  in  Illinois,  where 
parties  have  thus  left  the  State  for  California, 
or  other  places,  and  on  their  return  have  been 
allowed  to  vote  without  question.  1  submit,  then,  ' 
that,  even  assuming  the  deposition  in  this  case  to 
be  of  any  validity,  it  wholly  fails  to  show  that 
Lowry  was  not  a  legal  voter.  ^ 

Mr.  Speaker,  how  stands  the  case  now?  If 
you  reject  both  the  votes  of  Lowry  and  Cowden, 
then  the  case  is  left  precisely  where  it  was  after 
the  correction  of  errors  in  Livingston  precinct — 
being  two  majority  for  Archer.  If  you  reject  the 
vote  of  Lowry  alone,  which  I  think  you  cannot 
do,  then  Archer  is  elected  by  one  majority.  If 
you  reject  the  vote  of  Cowden  alone,  then  Archer 
is  elected  by  three  majority. 

In  any  view,  Mr.  Speaker,  which  I  have  been 
able  to  take  of  this  case,  the  contestant  is  clearly 
entitled  to  his  seat.  To  this  conclusion  my  mind 
has  been  irresistibly  forced  by  a  careful  con¬ 
sideration  of  the  evidence.  I  have  no  appeals  to  ^ 

make  to  this  House,  and  least  of  all,  on  a  question 
like  this,  any  partisan  appeal.  I  only  ask  this 
House  to  do  that  which  shall  be  in  accordance 
with  truth ,  justice,  and  right. 


* 


